Ok G man I need to break down your reply and see what I understand:
I enjoyed your examples, they made a valid point (Thank you) They did have one thing in common, Tangible result based upon our understanding of cause and effect principals even including variables (beyond our control) that were still based upon "conventional" wisdom. (What else could you base your understanding on if not conventional wisdom? Again, should you BELIEVE everything because it may be possible. I propose that you should not, but keep an open but skeptical mind when presented with previously unproven ideas ) Perhaps cultural analogies or parables further support the base of our understanding. (Are you implying that stories = Reality?) But why is it necessary to think that something as inheirantly supernatural as a communion with a seperate entity has to fit into human logic. (Inheirantly supernatural??? STRAW MAN and LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT Have we established that thier is such a thing? I must of missed that. In theory, no one said that anything must fit into human logic but how would you comprehend the communion unless there was a common ground for the understanding of the expieriance) Isn't the history of man full of examples where seemingly unexplainable phenomena was given to outrageous theory or (in the epitome of human vanity) a personification.... Just look at the humanoid God's created to explain things like the sun and moon. (yes!! exactly...do I see a hint of agnostic showing through?)
We are obviously far more technologically advanced than those people, (What people are we talking about here?) yet we still base much of our philosophical viewpoints on theories that originated at the same time and level of human development (That is a huge assumption. These are many contemporary philosophical viewpoints)..... Platonism itself, predates Roman mythology. There was a time that human flights of fancy were labeled as heracy if they differed from the outlandish ghost stories developed (by political and social leaders) in the name of Godly worship. Some of these flights of fancy were, human flight, microscopic organisms, and relationships between humans and spiritual creatures. Are we really so advanced today, that we have no need for objectivity before claiming that anything that does not fit into "OUR" understanding or sophisticated logic is some fabrication of an overactive imagination.
(We have great need for objectivity!! If the flight of fancy is presented to us we ask for proof. If thier is no proof than we do not adopt it as a fact. It does not negate the possibility that it may be proven true in the future but it does logically flow that you would or should adopt a positive belief in the concept. Are we to move all possible beliefs into a "to be proved later box" and run our lives as if they could all be true? Certainly not so why this specific belief? I am not claiming that God does not-could not-has not existed. It is you that is making the claim that God exists but you are offering no proof other than "nature screams it" I put that in the "Argument from Beauty" box)
I think you are applying what is know as the "putting God in the gaps" concept mixed with the "argument from personal incredulity". I think it goes like this: Since we can't exsplain everything right now and I cant imagine anything that could "make a flower, world etc fill in the blank" it must be God's hand. Again, all I am asking for is proof.
It might be justifyable if humans had the intellect to create something as simple as a squirrel ( I feel the Irreduceable Complexity argument or the Teleogical Argument coming) something as simple as an ant..OK...forget animals, how about a flower. Until that day comes, we might want to admit that we don't know everything.(We have and we continue to admit that. That is the basis of Science. I submit that when or if we CAN make a flower or Squirrel we would STILL not know everything) And IF these items were created by something with a conscience would it not be wise to admit that such a being would not necessarily be confined to the laws that govern our understanding, on this one little planet, in the middle of nowhere. (Serious STRAW MAN alert. It is the IF we are debating. You continue to argue based on the IF being agreed. This is not proof. These are assumptive arguments based upon the existance of the very thing we are debating)
respectfully,
Asheron